5.  The applicant was born in 1946 and is currently in detention in Regensdorf.
6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
7.  By a judgment of 4 July 2003, the Court of Appeal (Obergericht) of the Canton of Zürich sentenced the applicant to four years and four months’ imprisonment for multiple sexual acts with minors and multiple acts of sexual coercion.
8.  On 1 March 2010 the Court of Appeal suspended the execution of the custodial sentence, replacing it with preventive detention (Verwahrung) designed to prevent the applicant from reoffending.
9.  On 6 December 2011 the applicant requested exemption from the requirement to work in the context of custodial sentences and measures. On 19 March 2012 the Judicial Enforcements Office of the Canton of Zürich refused his request.
10.  By a decision of 29 May 2012, the competent authority of Pöschwies Prison placed the applicant under a stricter prison regime, confining him to his cell, and confiscated his television and computer for fourteen days on account of his refusal to work. That decision was revoked on 31 July 2012 by the Directorate of Justice and Internal Affairs following an appeal by the applicant.
11.  By a decision of 20 June 2012, the Directorate of Justice and Internal Affairs of the Canton of Zürich dismissed an appeal by the applicant against the decision of 19 March 2012.
12.  On 10 January 2013 the Administrative Court of the Canton of Zürich dismissed an appeal by the applicant against the decision of 20 June 2012.
13.  On 15 February 2013 the applicant appealed to the Federal Court, arguing in particular that Articles 74, 75 and 81 of the Criminal Code had been wrongly applied, and alleging a violation of his human dignity and personal freedom within the meaning of Articles 7 and 10 respectively of the Federal Constitution (see paragraphs 15-17 below).
14.  In judgment 6B_182/2013 of 18 July 2013 (ATF 139 I 180), which was notified to the applicant on 31 July 2013, the Federal Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
The Federal Court found that the requirement for prisoners to work was not in itself in breach of human rights, and specifically of Article 4 of the Convention (point 1.5 of the reasoning).
Hence, the purpose of compulsory work in the context of the execution of custodial sentences and measures was to develop, maintain or promote prisoners’ capacity to resume working life after their release. In the Federal Court’s view, the requirement to work contributed to the execution of sentences and fostered appropriate social behaviour and the capacity to avoid reoffending. It was also designed to occupy prisoners, give structure to their daily lives and maintain order in the institution (point 1.6).
The Federal Court added that, as prisoners got older, greater emphasis was placed on the obligation to provide them with the necessary support (necessary-support principle) and on reducing the negative impact of detention (principle of least possible harm). In the case of prisoners over the age of 65, the requirement to work served the purpose of avoiding the harmful effects of detention, for instance the isolation of persons who had reached retirement age, and preventing mental and physical deterioration. The work had to be tailored to the prisoner’s abilities, training and interests, and it was therefore necessary to avoid placing an excessive burden on prisoners over the age of 65. Lastly, in the case of persons who were less physically and mentally able, the occupation could take the form of therapeutic activity (point 1.6).
The Federal Court further held that the Old-Age and Survivors’ Insurance Act was designed to guarantee a living income to persons who were no longer able to work because of their age. However, work performed in connection with the execution of a custodial sentence or measure was not comparable to an employment contract on the competitive labour market, but rather should be regarded as an occupation within a closed system. The Federal Court therefore held that the rules governing persons of pensionable age did not apply to prisoners (point 1.8).
The Federal Court also found that an occupation carried out on a voluntary basis was not apt to fulfil the aims pursued by the requirement to work in prison (point 2.6.2).